Nazis and KKK get laughed at...

Yes it goes on to explain the economic side of the strategy and discounting the social side.... as I said.

I'd appreciate it if you thought a little farther ahead in your debate, if it is a debate, because so far nothing you have posted or stated negates anything that I've said. It just offers an alternate perspective and doesn't prove anything as a myth.

We both look at the same tree, from the north side of the tree I say there is moss, on the south side you say there is none, and refusing to even walk around to see it you claim the moss doesn't exist.

So... do you want to laugh at the KKK and the Nazi's. or spend your time on this thread defending Republicans?

I KNOW that not all Republican or Conservatives for that matter, are racist. But in my experience if a Klansman or NeoNazi types claim an ideology, (usually when they do) it tends to lean to the Conservative. Well, more than lean, it usually skates the fringe of the utmost right.

They hate social reform programs (entitlements), they hate anti-discrimination organizations such as the NAACP, they hate so called black leaders, they tend to claim Christianity of some form, they are pretty much against abortion... unless it's minority abortion.

I see people who claim to be Republicans or take right wing positions on this very board (and many others) spout off racist shit. If you don't like being included by association, stand out and tell them to stop fucking up your party's reputation, instead of just watching it happen and wondering why the left makes these kind of associations.
 
Phishbohn said:
Yes it goes on to explain the economic side of the strategy and discounting the social side.... as I said.

I'd appreciate it if you thought a little farther ahead in your debate, if it is a debate, because so far nothing you have posted or stated negates anything that I've said. It just offers an alternate perspective and doesn't prove anything as a myth.

We both look at the same tree, from the north side of the tree I say there is moss, on the south side you say there is none, and refusing to even walk around to see it you claim the moss doesn't exist.

So... do you want to laugh at the KKK and the Nazi's. or spend your time on this thread defending Republicans?

I KNOW that not all Republican or Conservatives for that matter, are racist. But in my experience if a Klansman or NeoNazi types claim an ideology, (usually when they do) it tends to lean to the Conservative. Well, more than lean, it usually skates the fringe of the utmost right.

They hate social reform programs (entitlements), they hate anti-discrimination organizations such as the NAACP, they hate so called black leaders, they tend to claim Christianity of some form, they are pretty much against abortion... unless it's minority abortion.

I see people who claim to be Republicans or take right wing positions on this very board (and many others) spout off racist shit. If you don't like being included by association, stand out and tell them to stop fucking up your party's reputation, instead of just watching it happen and wondering why the left makes these kind of associations.
Click to expand...
You're simply pointing to a splinter in the eye of the GOP while ignoring the log in the Democrat Party. Then you're confusing the Conservative ideology of Regan with some whack-job ideology of these neo-Nazis, ignoring their deep roots of socialism, and of course the KKK, formed as a wing of the Democrat Party not simply to terrorize blacks but Republicans, both white and black.

My brand of "true" conservative hates entitlements, since these are socialist policies. I have nothing against the NAACP unless it is partisan, and that agency has clearly done that to become a wing of the Democrat Party. I have nothing against black leaders who are truly leaders, like Tom Sowell, Allen West, Condi Rice, Walter E. Williams (my favorite, by far, of all talk-show hosts), Clarence Thomas and other great independent thinkers. I despise abortion, especially the type targeting blacks, that which is the foundation of Planned Parenthood, yet another branch of the Democrat Party.
 
Nazies and KKK get laughed at...

I know the log...and the moss. To me the social wedge created by the strategy trumps the economic appeals.

You can't seem to get past pawning the social issues off on a name brand.

At least you've gotten past calling the strategy a myth, and reached the point where you can see that there were both economic and social implications.

Are you ready to get back to the point of this thread?
 
and Southern Democrats left the party after 1964. Thurmond and Helms being the most prominent. The latter said of the Civil Rights marches of 1963 "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced". After the CRA of 1964 Southern Democrats left the party in droves for the Republican party which was slowly softening to their racism solely to win elections. Lee Atwater just gives it a name.
 
I think some folks just enjoy the gratuitous use the word, Nigger.

I agree that Johnson's statement is racist. It damns Johnson.

That said, I have to weigh, what was more telling about the racism of the time. Johnson's statement and subsequent signing of the CRA, OR those who voted against it in order to keep Jim Crow intact.

Your argument would be that it was Democrats who voted against it. My reply will be, it was "Southern Conservative Democrats" who voted against it. The same Southern Conservative Democrats who at the time were a majority in the south, and from that time to Reagan migrated to become "Southern Conservative Republicans", whether you think they did it because of the Republicans economic message or their social message... that's what happened.

We already covered Nixon.

Barry Goldwater, from whom modern conservatism is based, voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Ex Democrat Ronald Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964

He opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South")

He ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."

Reagan supported the apartheid government in South Africa

He started his reelection campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the place where three civil rights workers were killed by the KKK in 1964.

Romney btw ended his campaign in Sanford, Florida... where there was a big Civil right issue when Trevon Martin was shot by Zimmerman. what was that about?
 
Phishbohn said:
So I take it you aren't ready to rebuke the KKK and the Neo-Nazi's just yet?
Click to expand...
I told you before, they are your boys to rebuke, not mine.

So you agree that racism has been used by both sides. That's a start anyway.

Don't be a fool and believe everything your high school history book (written by Democrats) told you. Use common sense. Put yourself in a 1960's era Southern Democrat's shoes for a minute. You probably have friends in the KKK, or at least know of folks who are. You've voted Democrat your entire life because that's what you parents and grandparents did. You definitely had relatives that fought in the civil war and your grandparents told you the stories. They probably have stories of the Yankees killing their relatives, stealing their farm animals and burning down their homes. You probably have a cousin that defected to the North and the family disowned them. Southerners have pride and never, ever, forget.

All of a sudden some Republican comes along and they "switched"? Because they said: "leave it to the 'party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice'."?

Then when the Republican gets into the White House, he:
"raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;
doubled the budget for black colleges;
appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ;
adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities..."​

And those policies attracted you further to the Republican Party?

Also, what you don't realize is that the South was only solidly Democrat until the early 19th century. I know a lot about North and South Carolina history so I'll explain from that perspective. When the Germans migrated to The South starting in the 1820's or so ancestors of the English (Anglicans) owned all the prime farmland, from roughly Raleigh and eastward. These were the original slaveholders. When the Germans (Moravians) came the English hated them as they hated anyone not of their ancestry, and the Germans were forced further west into the Piedmont to less desirable farmland. The Moravians were relatively poor, few of them owned slaves and if they did they educated them, something that the Anglican slave holders really resented. When the Scot-Irish migrated they settled further west in the Piedmont as well as the Mountain counties and they were more poor than the Germans. Again, few if any owned slaves and they hated the English as many were descendents of people who were persecuted by the English. The English-Anglicans had control of the wealth and therefore political power and of course they were Democrats.

During the Civil War the Piedmont and Mountain counties of North Carolina was instrumental in defeat of the Secessionists. Union troops found haven in many areas and the Underground Railroad was also here. Many Western Carolinians not only opposed the war but were Unionist themselves. This deep political division still exists today between the regions in North Carolina, and it is reflected in the current 2012 red-blue county-by-county mapping. This is further evidence that no such "switch" took place.
 
A couple of points here for you.

I'm not white or a democrat... first off. Second you still are stuck on brand name rather than ideology, the key word is "conservative". Third the switch didn't happen "all of a sudden". It took a long time, from FDR to Reagan.

Nixon implemented those programs AND Affirmative Action, in order to calm disenfranchised blacks and ease his platform for law and order. He DID NOT do these things to attract southern conservatives to the republican party, but what he did do in his second term was run on ending busing.

The democratic candidates running against Nixon were two of the most Liberal, Humphrey the first term, and McGovern the second. No conservative anywhere was going to vote for those two, so in the first election the conservative southern democrats voted for George Wallace, an Independent who fled the Democratic party because of its new stance on Segregation. In the second election the conservatives voted for Nixon, basically by default. Nixon didn't even try to get rid of busing, he just campaigned on it. (The last sentence here is critical, though it may take a while to sink in).

At the time of Nixon, there were still many Southern Conservative Democrats but the move was underway. The South voted for Jimmy Carter (southerner) over Ford, because Ford was a moderate and Carter was a Southerner. After Carter was elected southern conservatives were outraged at how liberal he was, and in popped Reagan, saying he wanted states rights, to end Affirmative Action and quotas, wanted to put an end to welfare... basically the same shit y'all been running on since. This was music to the disenfranchised southern conservatives ears.

Lastly, How do you know what I don't realize.

I'm well aware of when the Democratic Party started, what they branched from and evolved to. This discussion has nothing to do with local history, or the specifics of who owned slaves, or who was oppressed. I'm from Louisiana and we have an AMAZING local history with a huge mix of diverse cultures. And I can go on about that ad nauseam, but it's not central to the point.

And this debate is not central to the thread.


And your basic mode of debate is to counter me by reversing what I say, it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking to do that.

So I'll take it as a no. You don't feel compelled to rebuke the Klan or Neo-Nazi's because you are a Republican? Is that your stance?
 
Phishbohn said:
A couple of points here for you.

I'm not white or a democrat... first off. Second you still are stuck on brand name rather than ideology, the key word is "conservative". Third the switch didn't happen "all of a sudden". It took a long time, from FDR to Reagan. ...
Click to expand...

First of all, you're confusing the historical definitions of liberal and conservative with the modern ones. If I had been alive in 1860 I would call myself a liberal. In fact a radical. Look up "Radical Republicans" and see what I mean. That political movement stood for the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I would have believe then as I do now that "all men are created equal" and that they have a right to pursue happiness (not a right to wealth produced by others).

"Conservatives" of that era were interested in keeping their old traditions alive. That included slavery since they believed as their English ancestors did that "in order for there to be rich, there must be poor." As I pointed out to you before in other threads, Democrats still adhere to this economic theory today.

Second, it doesn't matter if the "switch" in your theory took place over a week or a century. Southerners have long, generational memories.
 
I'm not confusing anything. Read what you wrote.

You said Democrats are still Conservatives.

So we know two things from our discussions.

You like to make up your own definitions, and you don't think you need to rebuke the KKK or the Neo-Nazi's because you are a Republican.
 
Nazies and KKK get laughed at...

Haiku said:
..............
Click to expand...

So help us understand. Your fellow democrats were pissed off about civil rights legislation so in response they flocked en masse to the party responsible for passing it ?

How do you possibly rationalize that?

:rofl2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top